Prince Andrew Thread 4

[Roussette]

I'm starting a new one as events seem to be moving again. Sorry I can't do a link to no. 3

I agree, it does make me wonder what actual evidence there is and it just becomes she said, he said, prove it.

He deserves to be convicted of being a bumptious oaf who no-one likes (except his family) with appalling judgement. Whether he is guilty of raping VG, I suppose we have to wait to see what evidence she has. Unfortunately, many people have made their decision before anything tangible has been shown. Detesting someone is not evidence unfortunately.

@Classicblunder

Where is the burden of proof in this kind of court? It does feel like VG doesn't have that much hard evidence. Based on what we know, I am not sure if I was on the jury, I would say guilty. I am no Andrew fan and am inclined to believe VG in the main but the evidence isn't that clear.

That's how I feel.

There are many people who are now happy to say things about Prince Andrew, including a convicted fraudster who worked for him for about six years, but he used to be quite popular.

I don't believe any of it. If things can be proved, I will; it's no skin off my rice pudding however it goes but I hate the way the media have turned (not just on him), and how people seem to want to believe the worst.

This is a civil court, not a criminal one, so the verdict will not be guilty. They will find for the plaintiff (VG) or the defendant.

The burden of proof is with the person making the allegations - VG. She doesn't have to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt, but she does need to prove it on the preponderance of evidence (that's the US term, which is broadly similar to the balance of probabilities, which is the term used in the UK). In other words, she has to convince the jury that it is more likely than not that her allegations are true. Specifically, she has to convince the jury that she was trafficked by Epstein, that Andrew knew she was trafficked, that they had sex, that she did not consent and that he knew she did not consent. Unless she has hard evidence, a lot will rest on how credible the jury finds her.

@prh47bridge

This is a civil court, not a criminal one, so the verdict will not be guilty. They will find for the plaintiff (VG) or the defendant.

The burden of proof is with the person making the allegations - VG. She doesn't have to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt, but she does need to prove it on the preponderance of evidence (that's the US term, which is broadly similar to the balance of probabilities, which is the term used in the UK). In other words, she has to convince the jury that it is more likely than not that her allegations are true. Specifically, she has to convince the jury that she was trafficked by Epstein, that Andrew knew she was trafficked, that they had sex, that she did not consent and that he knew she did not consent. Unless she has hard evidence, a lot will rest on how credible the jury finds her.

That's a lot of stuff to prove. It's hard to see how she can do that with it all having happened such a long time ago. I actually don't think he is wrong to fight it in court rather than settle as it does seem difficult to see how she can make this case strongly enough, unless she has more evidence up her sleeve than we know about.

I think it's interesting and will play in the minds of jurors I suspect that there have been no other allegations against him, it is clear that he was on the periphery of this

I also worry that he might be seen as being singled out in this sorry mess. Such a shame JE was such a coward.

Even though he's as sleazy as hell, I think it might be hard for her to show that he knew she was trafficked.

JE and GM wouid have known, but would their guests really have any inkling?

JE is dead, maybe GM is the only one who knows what happened and she is in prison. Was VG at the trial?

@MayThePawsBeWithYou

JE is dead, maybe GM is the only one who knows what happened and she is in prison. Was VG at the trial?

I didn't hear any reports of her attending, so I don't think she did. She certainly wasn't called as a witness, apparently due to concerns about her credibility. This is partly because, whilst there is evidence to back up a lot of what she has said, she has acknowledged getting key details wrong, including initially falsely saying that she was 15 when Epstein first abused her.

In addition to her allegations against Andrew, she has made similar claims concerning a number of other high-profile men (although most of them aren't particularly well-known in the UK). Most of them have denied her allegations and say her accounts are fabricated. They have spent years attacking her credibility. The prosecutors in the Maxwell case probably wanted to avoid those men being called to try and undermine Giuffre's testimony as, if they were believed, that could have led to the jury being more sceptical of the claims made by other prosecution witnesses.

@MoggyP

Even though he's as sleazy as hell, I think it might be hard for her to show that he knew she was trafficked.

JE and GM wouid have known, but would their guests really have any inkling?

I don't know why you think he was sleazy as Hell, before this Epstein thing came up nobody thought it.

I agree that nobody would have guessed the women were 'trafficked'.

I don't know why you think he was sleazy as Hell, before this Epstein thing came up nobody thought it

Because it's now after this 'Epstein thing' came up

And what has emerged is sleazy. But not necessarily criminal (and there are no criminal charges against him) and, if he did not know about the trafficking, then it's hard to see that he could be found liable firbanything.

Remember he was Randy Andy, the playboy prince, used to having women throw themselves at him. Why wouid he think that any oarticuiar one of them had been trafficked?

Please correct my terminology if I have it wrong. Virginia Roberts Guiffre has brought a lawsuit against Prince Andrew. Are those correct words? Would we say it any differently in the UK? I know she has made allegations against several other men. I believe I have read that she says she had sex/was made to have sex six times with Alan Dershowitz. Has she brought any official cases against any of these other men? Would it cost her a lot of money to do that?

@upinaballoon

Please correct my terminology if I have it wrong. Virginia Roberts Guiffre has brought a lawsuit against Prince Andrew. Are those correct words? Would we say it any differently in the UK? I know she has made allegations against several other men. I believe I have read that she says she had sex/was made to have sex six times with Alan Dershowitz. Has she brought any official cases against any of these other men? Would it cost her a lot of money to do that?

She's either Virginia Roberts or Virginia Giuffre, depending on whether you want to use her maiden name or her married name, but there is nothing wrong with the words you have used.

She started proceedings for defamation against Alan Dershowitz in 2019. That case is still in progress with no sign that it will go to trial any time soon. He claims she is falsely accusing him as part of a plot to extort money from Leslie Wexner, former CEO of the parent company of Victoria's Secret. Wexner denies knowing Giuffre.

I don't have any information on how much it would cost her to bring cases against the men she has accused.

Thank you prh47bridge. So the Dershowitz case is for defamation and it's still rumbling on...........

@upinaballoon

Thank you prh47bridge. So the Dershowitz case is for defamation and it's still rumbling on...........

Indeed. Her full history of lawsuits:

In 2009 she sued Epstein for trafficking her while she was a minor. She settled for $500k.

In 2014 she attempted to join a Crime Victims Rights Act lawsuit against the US Justice Department. This action had started in 2008. The judge ruled that she could not join this lawsuit.

In 2015 she sued Maxwell for defamation as a result of Maxwell's comments about her allegations. The case was settled. It is thought that Maxwell paid Giuffre several million dollars.

In 2019 she sued Dershowitz for defamation based on the allegations by Dershowitz mentioned in my last post.

Last year she sued Andrew for sexual assault and emotional distress.

Last year Giuffre herself was sued by Rina Oh for defamation after she accused Oh of helping Epstein traffick girls.

Of all the prominent men she has accused, Andrew is the only one she has sued for sexual assault.

Dershowitz is suing her. Oh I see someone has already said that. I saw him on a TV programme a while back talking about it.

I remember when Prince Andrew was given the title, 'Randy Andy'. It was good humoured, like Prince Charles being 'Action man'. He was a young, single chap who had girlfriends - so what? It wasn't for that long, he married at 26.

@blyn72

Dershowitz is suing her. Oh I see someone has already said that. I saw him on a TV programme a while back talking about it.

I remember when Prince Andrew was given the title, 'Randy Andy'. It was good humoured, like Prince Charles being 'Action man'. He was a young, single chap who had girlfriends - so what? It wasn't for that long, he married at 26.

No, she is suing Dershowitz, not the other way round. You can see the complaint at www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/guiffre-dershowitz.pdf. This clearly shows that she is the plaintiff and he is the defendant.

It's always hard for women to prove rape, though. Even if medically examined immediately, if you comply under duress, I don't supposed there could be medical evidence that you were forced. It's not like these women walk around with cameras.

I hope that Andrew's former assistant does appear in court as they have been asked by a US judge. I hope they call in more palace staff - who incidentally are not leaking anything about this case or the circumstances surrounding that night.

I think Derschowitz has counter sued Guiffre, so he is also the plaintiff and she is also the defendant.

www.washingtonpost.com/crime-law/2019/11/08/alan-dershowitz-countersues-accuser-jeffrey-epstein-case-then-is-sued-by-david-boies/

[quote cathyandclare]I think Derschowitz has counter sued Guiffre, so he is also the plaintiff and she is also the defendant.

www.washingtonpost.com/crime-law/2019/11/08/alan-dershowitz-countersues-accuser-jeffrey-epstein-case-then-is-sued-by-david-boies/[/quote]
I hadn't seen that. That is his counterclaim for defamation and emotional distress as part of his defence which you can see at www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Dershowtiz-Counterclaim.pdf.

[quote cathyandclare]I think Derschowitz has counter sued Guiffre, so he is also the plaintiff and she is also the defendant.

www.washingtonpost.com/crime-law/2019/11/08/alan-dershowitz-countersues-accuser-jeffrey-epstein-case-then-is-sued-by-david-boies/[/quote]
Yes he has counter sued.

This could rumble on forever. In the meantime, Virginia Guiffre has made a lot of money and will probably continue to do so. I hope it is all worth it.

I note from Dershowitz's defence that he claims to have documentary evidence that proves Giuffre's allegations about him are false. He further claims that her lawyers accepted that this documentation disproved her allegations (which is hinted at in Giuffre's complaint) but then rowed back on this. If he does have the evidence he claims, this could be very expensive for Giuffre, both financially and in terms of her credibility.

Some interesting discussions on some old school US legal forums.

It's possible Andrews demand for a jury trial will be met with a requirement for him to attend court. Which is up to the judge.

Also

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60208231
...
US judge Lewis A Kaplan released his correspondence sent to London's High Court, formally asking for assistance in the civil case brought by Ms Giuffre, on Monday evening,

The request, under an international legal convention between co-operating courts, means that the British court must now decide whether to become involved in Prince Andrew's battle.
...

Now I am not sure why the judge is requesting this, not what Andrews team can do to counter it, if at all. Presumably they could launch a motion in the UK requesting that the UK courts tell the US courts to go fuck themselves ? However is it the UK courts place to question the basis of the request ? As long as it is correctly relayed through the system(s), it should be honoured.

Which then leads to what options Olney has at this point. Indeed what jurisdiction the evidence would be given under. Since UK law has no concept of the fifth amendment.

Now I am not sure why the judge is requesting this, not what Andrews team can do to counter it, if at all. Presumably they could launch a motion in the UK requesting that the UK courts tell the US courts to go fuck themselves ? However is it the UK courts place to question the basis of the request ? As long as it is correctly relayed through the system(s), it should be honoured.

The judge is requesting it because Giuffre's lawyers have asked him to do so and he has agreed to their request. Similarly, he has relayed a request from Andrew's lawyers to the Australian authorities.

I am not an expert in this process, but my understanding is that it is highly unlikely Andrew could get this thrown out, although he may be able to challenge conditions or terms of the order being made.

Which then leads to what options Olney has at this point. Indeed what jurisdiction the evidence would be given under. Since UK law has no concept of the fifth amendment.

We do have the same concept as the fifth amendment - a witness can refuse to answer any question if it would be self-incriminating. However, to answer the question, Olney and the other requested witness would be compelled to testify (as can happen in UK cases). When giving their evidence, they would be entitled to claim the any privilege from answering questions that is available to them under either UK or US law.

Does anyone have any thoughts on why Andrew's team want to call Virginia's husband as a witness? Can he even be made to testify against his wife or is that just in criminal court in the UK? I can't work out the plan with that one